Texas prepares to nullify NDAA and curtail TSA

I'm surprised it took so look for a state to take such action. While I personally applaud this action, I think secession is a non-starter, but still
a good way to voice dissent.

The secret government had had plans to use FEMA to take total control during national emergencies through powers enacted by Bill Clinton (essentially
a legal coup), Obama has reversed these orders, and he has also reversed orders giving power to the DOD in times of emergency, enacted by Bush senior
in 1988. This is all a matter of public record, and though not easy to find, can be found if you dig deep enough.

How do we know about the secret government? Well, it is laid out in this thread:

Anyway, I'm neither pro/anti Obama, but many seem to think he is going along with the NWO agenda, where as his actions speak differently. However he
must take responsibility for some unpopular laws - these laws make no sense to a reasonable individual unless viewed through lens that the government
is aware some major catastrophe is to soon befall the US, such as a major earthquake along the New Madrid fault.

So here are some interesting tidbits from the article:

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, "a national think tank that works to preserve and protect the principles of strictly limited government
through information, education, and activism," the state legislature will consider a pair of bills aimed at protecting some basic civil liberties for
citizens.

Earlier this week, Rep. David Simpson, R-Longwood, pre-filed a measure called "The Texas Travel Freedom Act," or H.B. 80, which would make it a
criminal act to intentionally touch "the anus, breast, buttocks, or sexual organ of the other person, including touching through clothing," without
probable cause, in the process of allowing someone access to public transportation.

In other words, the bill is aimed at ending pointless, embarrassing and invasive pat downs of travelers by the federal Transportation Security
Administration, among others.

The latter bill also provides for criminal penalties against any outside authority attempting to detain persons within the boundaries of Texas
without due process under the NDAA. If passed, the bill would effectively nullify indefinite federal detention in the state of Texas, the center said,
noting that the bills appear to be aimed at the Obama administration in particular.

Very good, unless they will use that fact of minimal pat down, to pull off another catastrophe, and blame the "lack of a good search" prior to
airplane boarding.. sort of like removing the security checks on the twin towers right before the attack.
However, i do applaud what they are doing.. The last few times i flew i always refuse the new scanners.
I make them pat me down.
I noticed a couple of things.
1- the older TSA people are very very polite... when i say older, i mean about in their mid thirties. and the oder they get, 40s 50s 60s, the nicer
they are.
2- the younger the tsa workers are, early 20s, the more insulting and power hungry they appear. Typical.
3- even though they invade my space patting me down, im making tsa work for their money instead if sitting there like A holes while people walk
through a machine. Soon opting out of the scanners will not be possible.

While I do agree with and commend the great state of Texas for their attempt to protect their citizens, It is a moot point, and completely useless.

The TSA is a federal agency, not subject to any states laws, and the NDAA is a federal law, that cannot be nullified or overridden by any state law at
any point ever.

So this means nothing, and will amount to nothing.

Federal law trumps state law unless such Federal law is in disaccord with the Constitution, the founding fathers wrote the Constitution this way to
prevent tyranny; the Founding fathers were clear in their defence of states rights, and desired state independence and autonomy as much was possible,
and the Founding fathers were also clear in their desire to curtail the powers of the Central government as much as possible, especially with respect
to domestic issues.

Anyone who doesn't understand this does not understand the reasons or process for the formation of the United States of America, is against the
constitution, and could be considered a traitor. I would hesitate to use the word secessionist to describe these people, as most "secessionists"
seem to understand the constitution better than most "Federalists".

It does not matter what or what it may not amount to - just that Texas has the nerve to want to nullify the NDAA act. Good on them. If only more
states would follow their example, it would be something that could really get a following behind it and is needed overall.

While I do agree with and commend the great state of Texas for their attempt to protect their citizens, It is a moot point, and completely useless.

The TSA is a federal agency, not subject to any states laws, and the NDAA is a federal law, that cannot be nullified or overridden by any state law at
any point ever.

So this means nothing, and will amount to nothing.

Federal law trumps state law unless such Federal law is in disaccord with the Constitution, the founding fathers wrote the Constitution this way to
prevent tyranny; the Founding fathers were clear in their defence of states rights, and desired state independence and autonomy as much was possible,
and the Founding fathers were also clear in their desire to curtail the powers of the Central government as much as possible, especially with respect
to domestic issues.

Anyone who doesn't understand this does not understand the reasons or process for the formation of the United States of America, is against the
constitution, and could be considered a traitor. I would hesitate to use the word secessionist to describe these people, as most "secessionists"
seem to understand the constitution better than most "Federalists".

You either misunderstand, or are intentionally misrepresenting the way the law works.

By your reasoning, all the states that passed gay marriage would be able to have it, all the states with medical mari-jane laws wouldnt have the feds
busting the stroe owners and growers at every turn....etc....

The states cannot make a law that contradicts federal law, its unconstitutional at its begining.

No matter what law Texas passes, the federal laws and regulations will always trump then in all situations.

I understand what your saying, and I do agree with it, but it is not the facts of the land we live in. The founding fathers vision has been long dead,
and their words and wisdom fall on the ears of the deaf, thank Lincoln, he is the one that guaranteed the federal government trumps the states.

I understand what your saying, and I do agree with it, but it is not the facts of the land we live in. The founding fathers vision has been long dead,
and their words and wisdom fall on the ears of the deaf, thank Lincoln, he is the one that guaranteed the federal government trumps the states.

So you are saying the vision of the founding fathers is dead and the constitution doesn't matter?

Apparently the Act that changed the name of the US and turned the US into a corporation occured soon after Lincoln as well.

States rights are a burning issue even at this and any future date of the present union......
Constitutionally Texas is well within its rights.
THREE CHEERS FOR TEXAS! HIP HIP OOOORAH!
It is refreshing to see the checks and balances are still there....a bit unused since the fourth estate sold out to the MIC> but well its damnrights
heartening!

Like it or not, there's still a Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld detention of citizens even before the FY12 NDAA
(Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 2004), so Texas isn't going to make that go away. In any case, no one is detained under the NDAA. It does not create any power of
detention.They are detained under the 2001 AUMF. The NDAA simply establishes certain procedures the government has to follow with respect to these
detainees. As such, it protects due process, and absolutely no one would be included in the group of "persons within the boundaries of Texas without
due process under the NDAA."

I believe the TSA's enhanced interrogation techniques overstep what the Supreme Court recognized as an administrative search, but a toothless state
statute is not the way to fight that. No Federal court will strike down US laws or regulations because they conflict with TX laws or regulations.
Again, we still have a Supremacy Clause. If you want to strike down US regulations, show a Federal court they conflict with US law or the US
Constitution.

look...states rights didn't work...period...let me ask you...if the founders came back and saw that each state had it's own set of laws regarding
slavery, wages, trade, taxes, working conditions, living conditions, different religous freedoms....you don't think they would have amended the
constitution?....read the federalists papers. the constitution was set up to be amended (read:changed) as needed by future generations.

Personally I think Texas is one state that can successfully function without aid from the Federal government. There's a reason it's called the lone
star state.

it has no state tax, it is billions and billions in debt, and it can barely take care of the people it has now...and you think it can functions
without the feds?....as soon as they imposed high state taxes, the good old boys of texas will be gone overnight.

it has no state tax, it is billions and billions in debt, and it can barely take care of the people it has now...and you think it can functions
without the feds?....as soon as they imposed high state taxes, the good old boys of texas will be gone overnight.

If Texans pay the amount of federal tax to the state there will be no debt.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.